What to presume of our children

Status
Not open for further replies.
Patrick writes:
[quote:e9db8366ab]"And there is another option in presumption. We can presume them regenerate, unregenerate, OR we can simply say "I don't know yet." I think this is what Fred was getting at. [/quote:e9db8366ab]

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Joh 20:24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
Joh 20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
Joh 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
Joh 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.


[quote:e9db8366ab]We can all agree these children are in the covenant and federally holy. We all agree they must be trained in the ways of the Lord. We all agree when they behave contrary to their baptism, they must be corrected, and also encouraged when they act properly. This is certainly how the Church treats our children before they make profession of faith. This is why I think the prospective heir approach seems to fit the accepted practice of the Church better. The Church is looking for a credible profession of faith in her members, including the children, and until she sees it, she cannot permit them to full communicant membership.[/quote:e9db8366ab]

Pat,
Is this not -baptistic- thinking?


[quote:e9db8366ab]I don't think it is doubting the promises of God to look for evidence of regeneration as our children grow. [/quote:e9db8366ab]


Heb 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

[Edited on 4-15-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
Patrick,

How does "I don't know" fit with God saying "I will?"

There is no straw man. I think it rests on whether or not we really do believe that God will do what He says He will do. If God said "I might be a God to your children..." then we could say "I don't know..."

What Thornwell is purposing is that we act like Arminians hoping to see some "regenerate fruit" before we will believe the promise given to us.
 
[quote:c7f370703e][i:c7f370703e]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:c7f370703e]
How does "I don't know" fit with God saying "I will?"
[/quote:c7f370703e]

:repost:

[quote:c7f370703e]
There are examples in Scripture where trusting the promises of God does not mean presuming they have already been fulfilled, but trusting in their future accomplishment. David's annoiting as king is one prime example. It was promised he would be king, and David trusted it would be so. But he had to wait for the fulfillment of the promise in God's own time. He could not just usurp the throne whenever he felt ready. Isaac had to wait until he was in old age before he saw the fullfillment of the promise in Jacob. Abraham trusted in the promise of a son long before it ever happened, but he had to wait for God's time for it's fullfillment (and we saw what happened when he doubted in producing Ishmael). Moses was promised that God would deliver Israel from Pharoah, but it took time for fulfillment. But that in no way meant he didn't ultimately trust in the promises of God. Christ has promised to come again, yet we do not presume it to have happend yet, but wait for the fulfillment and trust He will in fact come. The concept of trusting a promise and waiting for the fulfillment is not without scriptural precedent. [/quote:c7f370703e]

I did not say, "I don't know" but "I don't know [i:c7f370703e]yet[/i:c7f370703e]."

[Edited on 4-15-2004 by puritansailor]
 
Patrick:
Look at those examples you gave. The response was not, "I don't know [i:1c495f16f7]yet[/i:1c495f16f7]!" They acted on thoe promises as if they were true. Think of David in the cave, when King Saul's life was threatened by David's own men. David acted in faith onthe promise. He presumed it to come to pass just as God promised it, and he responded in faith to it. Abraham resoonded in two ways: on the instigation of Sarai he took Hagar as a wife and begot Ishmael; and on the direct promise of God he knew Sarah and begot Isaac. Either way he did it presuming God would fulfill His promise. It could even be conjectured that Jacob beguiled his father for the blessing on the same principle. He knew the prophecy as well as his mother, but they stooped to their own method on their presumption instead of waiting for God to fulfill His promise while they followed in steadfast faith to it.

Whatever one does following the promise is based on one of two presumptions: I see it because God said it; or I'll believe it when I see it. All your examples are the former, though not all acted wisely according to it.
 
[quote:5d7350c542][i:5d7350c542]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:5d7350c542]
Patrick:
Look at those examples you gave. The response was not, "I don't know [i:5d7350c542]yet[/i:5d7350c542]!" They acted on thoe promises as if they were true. Think of David in the cave, when King Saul's life was threatened by David's own men. David acted in faith onthe promise. He presumed it to come to pass just as God promised it, and he responded in faith to it. Abraham resoonded in two ways: on the instigation of Sarai he took Hagar as a wife and begot Ishmael; and on the direct promise of God he knew Sarah and begot Isaac. [b:5d7350c542]Either way he did it presuming God would fulfill His promise.[/b:5d7350c542] [/quote:5d7350c542]
You have just illustrated my point for me John. God "would" fulfill it. Abraham and David trusted that God "would" fulfill it not that it was fulfilled already. He did not presume it had happened yet. If he had presumed it had happend then he would have started ruling Israel when he was annoited as a boy. The promise was made, but he waited for the fulfillment. Waiting is not passive either. Obviously David served Israel with all his heart, but he was not King until later. If you were to ask young David, "are you King of Israel" obviously he would say "not yet, but I will be." If you were to ask David when the promise would be fulfilled he would say "I don't know, but it will happen!"
 
Patrick:
But that's not all I said. When God promises, it is to be reckoned as done, even though it has yet to be fulfilled. It is that confidence that David acted upon when he saved Saul's life. He remembered the law, and knew that this was not God's way, so he presumed uoon the comptetion of God's promise and saved Saul.

And David, Saul, and everyone else knew that David's annionting was immediately effective. The annointing was upon him a long time before he actually became king.

[Edited on 4-15-2004 by JohnV]
 
[quote:014fc365a3][i:014fc365a3]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:014fc365a3]
Patrick:
But that's not all I said. When God promises, it is to be reckoned as done, even though it has yet to be fulfilled. It is that confidence that David acted upon when he saved Saul's life. He remembered the law, and knew that this was not God's way, so he presumed uoon the comptetion of God's promise and saved Saul. [/quote:014fc365a3]
But he was not King yet. The promise was not yet fulfilled. He trusted the promise and acted upon it yes. But he didn't know [i:014fc365a3]when[/i:014fc365a3] he would be King. He just knew that he would be eventaully when God brought it to pass.
 
Patrick:
See my previous post. I was editting it while you were responding.
 
[quote:427d99addb][i:427d99addb]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:427d99addb]
Patrick:
See my previous post. I was editting it while you were responding. [/quote:427d99addb]
I saw it. It doesn't change the argument. David was annoited yes. He was made a promise yes. He acted upon the fact that the promise would be fulfilled. But he didn't know when it would happen. He trusted that God would make him king when He so pleased. David didn't presume the promise was fulfilled but that it would be fulfilled. He did presume the promise was real. But he still had to wait for the fulfillment.
 
So, let's use the case with Genesis 17.

God would bring about the child of promise and Abraham believe that it would happen.

Agreed.

Then Isaac is born.

Did Abraham believe that Isaac WAS the child of promise?

Did he circumcised THE child of promise in reality, or was he waiting for Isaac to BECOME the child of promise?

We are not talking about David "becoming king" we are talking about applying the covenant seal to children and what we think about them when we do that based on Scripture.

What is being missed is that the very fact we have the child in our hands should be telling us something that we do not have to think about waiting for. They are either children of promise, or not. We wither treat them as if they are (thus we baptize them) or we don't (thus we treat them like the pagan on the street).

Should Abraham think Isaac is the child of promise or not?

Did he have to say "I don't know yet..." and then circumcise him at a later time? Or did he "know" at that point? Did he trust the promises (hopefully so or else Romans will be overthrown) or not?

Is he the example for us as the father of the faithful? Faithful to what? Promises that may come come true, or the realities themselves taken [b:b2fb7865df]as[/b:b2fb7865df] true? :scratch:
 
Not ignoring you MAtt. Just have to work swing shift the next couple days. I will respond. It will give me more time to think anyway. You've made some good points that I need to rattle around my brain for a bit.
 
Need some clarification here

[quote:3097d5dc68][i:3097d5dc68]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:3097d5dc68]
So, let's use the case with Genesis 17.

God would bring about the child of promise and Abraham believe that it would happen.

Agreed.

Then Isaac is born.

Did Abraham believe that Isaac WAS the child of promise? [/quote:3097d5dc68]
Now, I don't think it's this simple. Yes, Isaac was the promised son from Sarah's barren womb. He was the fulfillment of the promise made long before. There is no doubt there. And it was also clear that he should be circumcised and raised in the covenant just as God had commanded him to do with his household long before (Gen. 17).
[quote:3097d5dc68]
Did he circumcised THE child of promise in reality, or was he waiting for Isaac to BECOME the child of promise?

We are not talking about David "becoming king" we are talking about applying the covenant seal to children and what we think about them when we do that based on Scripture.

What is being missed is that the very fact we have the child in our hands should be telling us something that we do not have to think about waiting for. They are either children of promise, or not. We wither treat them as if they are (thus we baptize them) or we don't (thus we treat them like the pagan on the street).

Should Abraham think Isaac is the child of promise or not?
[/quote:3097d5dc68]
The child of which promise though? The promises to Abraham have several layers. God promises to be a God to Him and his descendents. He promises to bless all nations in him, or through his Seed, he promises him that he would have a son through Sarah, and he promises him that he would be the father of many nations. Abraham had the promise of the gospel which he believed, and that was credited to him as righteousness. But it was the antitype of Isaac, Christ which he trusted for salvation right?
Gal. 3:8
[i:3097d5dc68]And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed."[/i:3097d5dc68]

How does presuming Isaac regenerate fit into his trusting in Christ for righteousness? How did circumcising his other sons fit into that promise? And if he was presuming all his sons regenerate and part of the covenant promises, then why did he send them away from Isaac? Wouldn't they all be part of the same covenant community?

[quote:3097d5dc68]
Did he have to say "I don't know yet..." and then circumcise him at a later time? Or did he "know" at that point? Did he trust the promises (hopefully so or else Romans will be overthrown) or not? [/quote:3097d5dc68]
He circumcised him because it was commanded by God and because being born into the covenant he had the promises made to him.

But when could Abraham presume that Isaac had taken claim to God for himself? This is the question the Church asks when examing someone for profession of faith isn't it? We agree that Abraham would have obeyed God to raise Isaac in the ways of the Lord, and not just to teach him about God, but to raise Isaac with the fact that the true God is his covenant God. No dispute there. But we also know that covenant membership and election are not necessarily the same thing.

[quote:3097d5dc68]
Is he the example for us as the father of the faithful? Faithful to what? Promises that may come come true, or the realities themselves taken [b:3097d5dc68]as[/b:3097d5dc68] true? :scratch: [/quote:3097d5dc68]
He is the father of the faithful in his example of trusting upon Christ for righteousness. No disagreement there. But what does this have to do with presuming Isaac regenerate?

Can you see my confusion over your post? There were several parts to the promise to Abraham. Isaac fulfilled part of it certainly. But which child of promise was Abraham trusting in for his righteousness? And how does it fit with presuming Isaac regenerate? And another final thought for clarification, I was never given a promise of a child. God never promised me a son (or a daughter for that matter). How is my son a child of promise to me when no such promise was given to me? There are some aspects of the promises to Abraham which don't apply to us. And your post seemed to confuse that. So please help me understand you better :)

[Edited on 4-18-2004 by puritansailor]
 
[quote:7bc994dd3e]
Should Abraham think Isaac is the child of promise or not?

The child of which promise though? The promises to Abraham have several layers. God promises to be a God to Him and his descendents. He promises to bless all nations in him, or through his Seed, he promises him that he would have a son through Sarah, and he promises him that he would be the father of many nations. Abraham had the promise of the gospel which he believed, and that was credited to him as righteousness. But it was the antitype of Isaac, Christ which he trusted for salvation right?
Gal. 3:8
[i:7bc994dd3e]And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed."[/i:7bc994dd3e]
[/quote:7bc994dd3e]

Patrick,
Respectfully, you are squeezing this lemon. Everyone knows what the promise is. There are no "layers" or stages..........


[quote:7bc994dd3e]
How does presuming Isaac regenerate fit into his trusting in Christ for righteousness?
[/quote:7bc994dd3e]

I believe it says everything about his faith; that faith was accounted righteous!


[quote:7bc994dd3e]How did circumcising his other sons fit into that promise? And if he was presuming all his sons regenerate and part of the covenant promises, then why did he send them away from Isaac? Wouldn't they all be part of the same covenant community?
[/quote:7bc994dd3e]
I don't believe the response of God changes anything. Just because God does something that we see as inconsistant, does not mean it is. God is never inconsistant. It is our job to remain consistant. To have the faith of righteousness. God is God, He does as He pleases. We just obey.


[quote:7bc994dd3e]
Did he have to say "I don't know yet..." and then circumcise him at a later time? Or did he "know" at that point?
[/quote:7bc994dd3e]

It is not a matter of Issac "knowing". He was being obedient and faithful.


[quote:7bc994dd3e]
But when could Abraham presume that Isaac had taken claim to God for himself? This is the question the Church asks when examing someone for profession of faith isn't it? We agree that Abraham would have obeyed God to raise Isaac in the ways of the Lord, and not just to teach him about God, but to raise Isaac with the fact that the true God is his covenant God. No dispute there. But we also know that covenant membership and election are not necessarily the same thing.[/quote:7bc994dd3e]

The point is, God elects; we believe and have faith. The promises of God in Him are yea, and in Him amen.

[quote:7bc994dd3e]
Is he the example for us as the father of the faithful? Faithful to what? Promises that may come come true, or the realities themselves taken [b:7bc994dd3e]as[/b:7bc994dd3e] true? :scratch: [/quote:7bc994dd3e]
He is the father of the faithful in his example of trusting upon Christ for righteousness. No disagreement there. But what does this have to do with presuming Isaac regenerate?[/quote]

Patrick, As I said previously. This is not so difficult. Placing oneself there along side Issac, you know that he believed God for the promises. When God said to Issac, "I will be a God to you and to your seeds", what do you think Issac thought of this statement? I WILL BE a God to you!!!

[quote:7bc994dd3e]
Can you see my confusion over your post? There were several parts to the promise to Abraham. Isaac fulfilled part of it certainly. But which child of promise was Abraham trusting in for his righteousness?[/quote:7bc994dd3e]

Both.


[quote:7bc994dd3e] And another final thought for clarification, I was never given a promise of a child. God never promised me a son (or a daughter for that matter). How is my son a child of promise to me when no such promise was given to me? There are some aspects of the promises to Abraham which don't apply to us. And your post seemed to confuse that. So please help me understand you better :) [/quote:7bc994dd3e]

Pat,
It was given to your father of faith........
What is it mean when the scriptures call Abraham "Father"?

Jam 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

Rom 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Rom 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

Rom 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

Act 7:2 And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran,
 
[quote:07da1921cb][i:07da1921cb]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:07da1921cb]
Patrick, As I said previously. This is not so difficult. Placing oneself there along side Issac, you know that he believed God for the promises. When God said to Issac, "I will be a God to you and to your seeds", what do you think Issac thought of this statement? I WILL BE a God to you!!! [/quote:07da1921cb]
Well, when he was born, he didn't think much of it at all. He had to be raised to understand what that meant. Then he had to take hold of the promise for himself by faith. But when could Abraham presume that Isaac had done that? This is what I'm getting at (I hope). When could Abraham smile with satisfaction and say "Ah yes, now the boy gets it!" This would be when Abraham could presume the promise was fulfilled that God would be a God to Isaac because it is at this point that Isaac has claimed God for his own.

The Church requires that the individual take hold of Christ by faith and he is not permitted to communicant membership until that profession is made. The Church is reserving these priveleges to those who have laid claim to God for themselves. We can presume God will bring our children to this point, but we can't presume it has happened until our children claim God for themselves.

[quote:07da1921cb]
What is being missed is that the very fact we have the child in our hands should be telling us something that we do not have to think about waiting for. They are either children of promise, or not. We either treat them as if they are (thus we baptize them) or we don't (thus we treat them like the pagan on the street).

Should Abraham think Isaac is the child of promise or not?
[/quote:07da1921cb]
This is the quote from Matt I was concerned about Scott. God has promised to be a God to my descendents certainly and that is made plain in every covenant established with God, but that is dependent on if I have any descendents. I was not given the promise of a son like Abraham was. So my child is not a child of promise in the same sense that Isaac was to Abraham. My child is not a type of Christ as Isaac was to Abraham.

Secondly,
We do not baptize our children because they are presumed regenerate, but because it is the command of God and because the promise is made to them. Hodge and Berkhof both make this clear as well as others. They talk about how "for adults" presumption of regeneration is required. But for infants, this presumption is not necessary because they are not able to give evidence for it. And until they can give it, they are kept from full communion. Both Hodge and Berkof, stop short of presuming regeneration as the grounds for baptism. And so do many of the other men that Matt quoted in support of his Catechism. Ames, Brown, Shaw, and Warfield do not go that far to presume regeneration but that they should be raised as heirs because the promise is made to them. I'll try to include some more quotes from them later. They do not even ask the question of whether they are to be presumed regenerate. They use the exact terms that Thornwell, A. Hodge, and Berkhof use in decribing children as heirs. I'm trying to study more of the men quoted there to read them in context. But this needs to be reevaluated I think. For instance, I quoted A. Hodge and Berkhof earlier in this thread and Matt agreed they didn't hold to presumptive regeneration as the grounds for infant baptism. Yet they are quoted in the Catechism as supporting it. So what am I missing here? Still researching... :gpl:

[Edited on 4-18-2004 by puritansailor]
 
[quote:02fcc1b3d5]
Well, when he was born, he didn't think much of it at all. He had to be raised to understand what that meant. Then he had to take hold of the promise for himself by faith.
[/quote:02fcc1b3d5]

Can anyone [i:02fcc1b3d5]really[/i:02fcc1b3d5] take hold of these promises by (our) faith? The reason Abraham or Issac was able to take hold of anything is because God took hold of them. I have faith because of God. I believe the promises [i:02fcc1b3d5]because of God[/i:02fcc1b3d5], I have hope because of God placing hope in me.

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.



[quote:02fcc1b3d5]But when could Abraham presume that Isaac had done that?
[/quote:02fcc1b3d5]

Pat,
It really has nothing to do with when Issac [i:02fcc1b3d5]takes hold of it[/i:02fcc1b3d5]. it has taken hold of him! Now, if Issac walks away from the faith, that is his problem. Let it never be said that God was a liar or not faithful; men are at fault for their faithlessness.



[quote:02fcc1b3d5]This is what I'm getting at (I hope). When could Abraham smile with satisfaction and say "Ah yes, now the boy gets it!"
[/quote:02fcc1b3d5]

See above


[quote:02fcc1b3d5]This would be when Abraham could presume the promise was fulfilled that God would be a God to Isaac because it is at this point that Isaac has claimed God for his own.[/quote:02fcc1b3d5]

Patrick,
If God told me directly that he would be a God to Zoe (which He has, through father Abe), who am I to question that?

[quote:02fcc1b3d5]The Church requires that the individual take hold of Christ by faith and he is not permitted to communicant membership until that profession is made.
[/quote:02fcc1b3d5]

To me, this is an inconsistancy which I flatly reject!

[quote:02fcc1b3d5]The Church is reserving these priveleges to those who have laid claim to God for themselves.[/quote:02fcc1b3d5]

Sounds like semi Pelagianism!

[quote:02fcc1b3d5]We can presume God will bring our children to this point, but we can't presume it has happened until our children claim God for themselves. [/quote:02fcc1b3d5]

Mat 14:30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
Mat 14:31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?



[quote:02fcc1b3d5]Secondly,
We do not baptize our children because they are presumed regenerate, but because it is the command of God and because the promise is made to them.
[/quote:02fcc1b3d5]

You write and state correctly. See the magnitude of this statement?
[i:02fcc1b3d5]it is the command of God and because the promise is made to them[/i:02fcc1b3d5]



[quote:02fcc1b3d5]Hodge and Berkhof both make this clear as well as others. They talk about how "for adults" presumption of regeneration is required. But for infants, this presumption is not necessary because they are not able to give evidence for it.[/quote:02fcc1b3d5]

Luk 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?


[quote:02fcc1b3d5]And until they can give it, they are kept from full communion. [/quote:02fcc1b3d5]

They are kept from the table until they are able to [i:02fcc1b3d5]examine themselves[/i:02fcc1b3d5]. Is it not our job to make sure of some things. Defining whether they are able to examine is not to be a contradiction of whether or not they are regenerate. The command for the table is to "examine". If they are not able to examine, it is our responsibility to protect them and the table (lest a millstone be tied to my neck).

Have a great Lords day brother.
More to come...............


[Edited on 4-18-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
May I interject here?

I said something a long time ago in another thread that might just be the cause of confusion here. I stand corrected in this. I placed too much emphasis on presumption being [i:514d7c19ec]the reason[/i:514d7c19ec] for batism. It is not [i:514d7c19ec]the reason[/i:514d7c19ec] itself, for the command to baptize is. But with that command comes promises, and those promises are assurances, and those assurances are to be believed; hence the presumption.

Please for give me for confusing this previously.

[Edited on 4-19-2004 by JohnV]
 
Patrick:

What book by Thornwell are you referencing here?

[Edited on 9-9-2005 by poimen]
 
Wow. This is an old thread. Thornwell argues his view in two treatise in Vol. 4 of his Collected Writings. The two are called The Revised Book of Discipline and The Revised Book Vindicated. He deals more than just with the status of baptized children here but his view is clearly explained in these two works. Somewhere there is a published interaction with his debate with Hodge over this issue but I don't have it. Wayne might know though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

blhowes
  • Locked
Baptists don't presume, but...
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
C. Matthew McMahon
C. Matthew McMahon
3
  • Locked
Covenant Children - children of wrath and children of God in tension
Replies
10
Views
3K
chuckd
chuckd
jenney
  • Locked
Blessings to Covenant Children
Replies
20
Views
6K
5solasmom
5solasmom
J
  • Locked
Children of Believers
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
Grimmson
Grimmson
B.L.
  • Locked
James Henley Thornwell's View of How to Treat Covenant Children
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
Back
Top